February 8th, ipi6.] PROCEEDINGS. xxix 



differentiating this mandible from that of modern man had been 

 unduly exaggerated ; (4) that the canine tooth could not have 

 belonged to the same individual as the skull and the jaw because 

 it differed from them in age, according to one authority being 

 definitely older, and to another distinctly younger ^ than the other 

 fragments. These widely divergent views tend to neutralise one 

 another. 



In considering the possibility that more than one hitherto 

 unknown ape-like man or man-like ape expired in Britain side 

 by side in the Pleistocene period, and left complementary parts 

 the one of the other, the element of improbability is so enormous 

 as not to be set aside except for the most definite and positive 

 anatomical reasons. The evidence submitted in support of each 

 item of the arguments for the dissociation of the fragments was 

 examined ; and it was maintained that none of it was sufficiently 

 strong to bear the enormous weight of improbability which these 

 hypotheses imposed upon it. 



The author called special attention to the implied inference 

 that the cranium itself was not sufficiently simian to be associated 

 with the jaw ; and emphasised the fact that the skull itself 

 revealed certain features of a more primitive nature than any 

 other known representative of the human family. 



A paper by Mr. W. J. Perry, B.A., entitled " The Geo- 

 graphical Distribution of Terraced Cultivation and 

 Irrigation," was read by Professor G. Elliot Smith. 



This paper is printed in full in the Memoirs. 



Mr. J. Wilfrid Jackson, F.G.S., read a paper entitled 

 "The Geographical Distribution of the Shell-Purple 

 Industry." 



The same Author read a further paper entitled " Shell- 

 Trumpets and their Distribution in the Old and New 

 World." 



These papers are printed in full in the Memoirs. 



